Does anyone else think I'm crazy?!?

[cc-rider]

We are going to look at properties this weekend. Two totally opposite homes.

Both are in the same general location - Mohican area of Ohio, which is absolutely beautiful. This home would probably be our final retirement home. At least for another 20 years and then I might change my mind again. LOL

Both are on about the same amount of property, 3-5 acres, and pretty much the same wooded-wise. (Yeah, I'd love more, but can't find it where I want it).

Here is the difference:

#1 HUGE 3000 square foot log cabin built in 2000, nice walk-out basement, top of the line. Very modern. Several bedrooms and bathrooms. Has a 60x30 "recreation" room that I could convert to a music studio attached to the house, plus a guest cottage. Ready to move into. $300K

#2 Home built in 1835, remodeled once in 1960s. About 1700 square foot, I think. One bathroom. Probably a root cellar-type basement. Not sure about the wiring, plumbing, or anything else. Designated a "historical home". Very much original on the inside. Heating with space stoves. Small garage on property, too. Room to build a large barn for barn dances, and a music studio on property. Beautiful OLD trees. Envisioning kitchen garden outside of door. $120K

So why am I so smitten with #2??!?!?! Of course, I haven't seen either yet, so may have a better opinion after this weekend.

What would YOUR choice be? Would it be different if it wasn't a retirement home and you weren't as capable of remodeling, etc.?

[Snowfan]

Just a question, if a home is designated as a "historical home" are you limited to what you can do there?

[Harry Chickpea]

If you don't have unlimited funds, retirement homes must not be money pits, or prone to property tax increases, or difficult for the handicapped. 3000 SF in Ohio = huge heating bills.

I suggest that NEITHER qualifies as a retirement home that would allow you to live without hardship in other areas - especially if the economy does something stupid.

[cc-rider]

Good question, Snowfan. I'll have to check into that.

Harry, I totally agree. That's one reason I'm trying to find someplace with reasonable property taxes. I looked at one place where it was $7K a year!!! That's ridiculous around here. The 1835 house tax is about $900 a year.

Taxes will never go down and you will always have to pay them. That's a huge consideration for me in my search.

[billinwv]

I have to agree with Harry. Log homes are beautiful and very expensive to maintain(believe me there is no 10 year stain, 5 at best). I have done the log and the very old home. Never again. Now in a brick rancher and just finished covering all exterior wood with vinyl and aluminum. I own this one, not the other way around.

[||Downhome||]

Small Home less upkeep,lower bills if properly constructed.
Which the Older home may be solid in construction, its most likely not energy efficient.
The Other one will still need a good bit of energy I'm thinking.

You buy a 300,000 home no mater the size you pay tax on that value...

If you can cover 300,000 I'd locate someplace low in Taxes,Find a suitable property (Able to have septic and well), build well and Modestly to suit your current needs, with a eye towards future needs in mind. For extra Space construct a pole barn for storage and room for other activity.

Put the Difference into land if you can. Multiple lots if possible.
That way its not all lumped in on the same tax record and valued accordingly.
If need be you can always sell off the unimproved land.

We are on 10 acres, Utility's are low,well and septic,wood heat all winter this year and moderate Taxes.

Pole Barn Bigger then the House, house is well designed and Insulated and gets a lot of Heat from solar gain (baking out right now with the two logs I threw on to keep the fire going before the sun came out) House is not to big and not too small.

Its almost perfect. And far less expensive then a lot of other places to live.

[philm]

if that was my price range (mine was $70,000), I would buy a smaller home, with a nice outbuilding with 20-30 acres somewhere within a 30 minute drive of a population center of over 20,000. Use the extra money to get some solar, get a wind mill water pump/cistern and make my house more energy efficient. But because I could only afford a $70,000, i had to move 1.5 hours away from a population center of over 80,000, buy a house that needs a ton of work and has no outbuildings and only 10 acres.

[cc-rider]

If I thought I was capable, I'd build something on the smaller side, very well insulated. On a larger piece of land. With a big barn to store my "stuff". One of the problems is that I love "quirky" and you can't build that. You can only find it accidentally, it seems.

My fear is that I'm not capable of building any longer. And truthfully, if I have to hire someone, it probably costs more to start from scratch with a well, septic, driveway, permits, outbuildings, and then finally building a house, than it would be to buy an older one and re-do it.

My dream had been to build in the hills of southern Ohio (where you can see Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia around you). I bought 112 acres there in the Wayne National Forest and had a small cabin built by the amish. It was vandalized four times in the first year alone. The last time, they totally wiped me out...right down to the bedding and toilet paper! Even used my trailer to haul it all away. Decided I wasn't retiring there since I hope to travel a lot. Can't trust stuff to be there when I get back! Unless I find other like-minded individuals who want to build beside me in exchange for keeping an eye on my property??? LOL

[cc-rider]

philm... I don't think you can buy ANYTHING on 20-30 acres around here for under $200-300K, depending on the amount of work it needed. Prices are ridiculous. Especially since they now think there is oil and everyone is keeping mineral rights if they own more than a couple acres. My problem is that I'd like to stay within a couple hour drive of northwest Ohio because of my children and grandchildren. If I could move farther south, it'd be a piece of cake to find something, I'm sure.

Where are you from that you found something that reasonable?

[WhoMe]

Yes, you're crazy Sorry, I just couldn't help myself

You have a lot of things to consider for each property so don't get too set on either. Keep it objective & if need be pretend you're looking for a place for your aged parents or your kids so you can nit-pick at each. You'll need to decide which, if any, will really suit your current and future needs. And be ready to walk away from both.

Both places probably have their own set of pros & cons. Of course what is obvious at the moment is costs. Log home is probably ready to move into so you can hit the ground running so you won't have to do any upgrades or prep work right away, only maintainence of what already exists. The older house probably will need renovations to get it up to legal codes for the plumbing, wiring, etc maybe a new roof, floors or are the floors even level? Would you have to replace the foundation before moving in? Nevermind the rotted toilet, sagging light fixtures, or peeling linoleum, leaded paint or gastly wallpaper. Maybe there is a spider or rat infestation or a family of raccoons living somewhere within?
With all that being said, and so much more that wasn't mentioned here, I'm with you in leaning toward the older home. But I also agree that you will need to check out about the 'historical' designation to see just what you can and cannot do with the place before ever even looking at it. I'd hate to buy the place only to find out you can only live in the house, but not use the property for animals or livestock. Or even worse, that you can only have 'approved' renovations or paint colors or whatever else may be restricted. What if you can't build on an extra bathroom, or back yard kitchen?
If you do get cleared for everything you want to do with it, the $180,000 difference between properties, would go along way in acheiving your dreams. You could even hire others to do the work for you & still have extra left over to save toward future ideas.

just saying

[where I want to]

Originally Posted by cc-rider

If I thought I was capable, I'd build something on the smaller side, very well insulated. On a larger piece of land. With a big barn to store my "stuff". One of the problems is that I love "quirky" and you can't build that. You can only find it accidentally, it seems.

My fear is that I'm not capable of building any longer. And truthfully, if I have to hire someone, it probably costs more to start from scratch with a well, septic, driveway, permits, outbuildings, and then finally building a house, than it would be to buy an older one and re-do it.

LOL

You can certainly build or rehab into all the "quirky" you want. I have redecorated into quirky once, rehabed into it once and finally had it built from scratch.

The easiest way is to shop for used stuff. Almost all my light fixtures are refurbished 100 years old. My door hardware is reproduction on solid wood doors. My ceiling fan has a 1920 art deco look. I built in nooks and crannies, a huge wrap around porch, had picture molding milled and installed, have a built in hutch, put in deep, real wood baseboards, had old fashioned window surrounds made with sloping sills outside and detailed molding inside. And hardy plank siding that looks like old fashioned clapboards.
It cost about the same (I did not spend for wood windows inside and now regret it,) but you need to have a contractor who likes the whole idea and you put such details into the contract from the get go. Real materials do not cost that much more than plastic/composit.
Just look at old houses that you love, make note of the details that makes it so and there you are- a house where people tell you that they didn't think houses were made like that any more but the floors are level and maintenence low.

[Michael W. Smith]

cc-rider, I think you are getting the cart before the horse - you haven't even SEEN these properties / houses.

Once you see both of them - you will probably realize which of the two is better suited to you - if either!

With #1 - you already know what you are getting. A huge place that is modern. You have everything already built that you need. The only thing - is it really a retirement home? Will you be able to keep the house clean 25 - 30 years from now? Or are you well enough off that you can hire it done?

With #2 - while the "historical" might be neat - just bear in mind with it being remodeled in the 60's - you are probably looking at several potential remodeling projects. Electrical for one. Plumbing possibly another - especially with only one bathroom. And does the "historical" dictate what can and can't be done? Building on a musica studio is going to raise the taxes to modern levels. And is this house "retirement accesible"?

Good luck as you visit each one this weekend. I hope you find the perfect place.

[GeneMO]

Be careful of that older home with the stone foundation "root cellar"

We had to tear down my Grandmothers 1906 Victorian style home because it was built on an old stone foundation that had water issues, and settleing issues. Even in 1979 when we took it down it was going to cost over $100,000 to fix it and make it livable.


Gene

[philm]

im in a very rural area in wisconsin, only have 15,000 people within a 20 minute driving radius, thats why land is so cheap, we also hit -26 as a low last winter haha. again, thats why no one is up here.

[philm]

my house also has a field stone basement, but the walls are 2 feet thick, it also has lots of water coming into the basement, but its field stone, and from 1908, so i shouldnt have expected that. it passed the inspection, so we bought it.

[jjdtaylor]

If "historical designation" means it's listed on the National Register of Historic Places, then it has no relevance to any improvements or changes you would want to make. Municipality-designated could be different.

[stef]

Wow! If you're even toying with the idea if a $300K property you don't need my advice! LOL

But, have fun window shopping and let us know how it went. (:

[Callieslamb]

Near retirement, I'd buy the property with the least amount of upkeep, if money isn't a problem.

[deb_rn]

Historic homes usually dictate that you have to maintain the wood siding... certain width to go with "the period", can't upgrade windows unless you copy "the period".
I know people that buy and refurbish the painted ladies here, but it's tedious work.

Debbie

[Whisperwindkat]

Neither. Like the others have said the first is going to cost you in heating and maintenance cost. The second being designated as historical means that you will have to keep renovations historical, which can be expensive. Old homes are a pain in the neck and I will almost guarantee you that there is major work to be done since the last renovation was in the 60s. We live in one of those and have poured so much money into it and it still needs more. There are always repairs and replacements around here. The ideal retirement home is smaller (cheaper utilities), easily maintained, has a smaller mortgage that could be paid off quickly, and has cheap taxes. I would pass on both of those homes.